Emergency Vehicle Rule —
SCR Maintenance and Regulatory
Flexibility for Nonroad Equipment:
Summary and Analysis of Comments
United States
Environmental Proloclion
Agency
-------
Emergency Vehicle Rule —
SCR Maintenance and Regulatory
Flexibility for Nonroad Equipment:
Summary and Analysis of Comments
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
United States
Environm«nl.»l ProlecliQn
Agency
EPA-420-R-14-001
July 2014
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction
List of Commenters
List of Acronyms
CHAPTER 1: FLEXIBILITY FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES
1.1 Purpose and Value of the Rule; Need for the Rule
1.1.1 Need for the Rule
1.1.2 Support for the rule
1.2 Scope and Applicability of the Rule
1.2.1 Definition of Emergency Vehicle for On-Road Vehicles
1.2.2 Definition of Emergency Equipment for Nonroad Equipment
1.3 Certification & Approvals of AECD's, EVFM's and EEFM's for New and Existing
Engines/Vehicles/Equipment
1.3.1 Degree of Relief Offered
1.3.2 Timing of Certification Process
1.4 General/Miscellaneous Comments on Provisions for Dedicated Emergency Vehicles &
Equipment
1.4.1 Treatment of Emergency Vehicles in the Heavy-Duty GHG Rule
1.4.2 Compatibility with NHTSA's Definition of Emergency Vehicle
1.4.3 Develop a Public Awareness Program
CHAPTER 2: SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE AND MAINTENANCE INTERVALS FOR
REPLENISHMENT OF DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID
2.1 General support for adding DEF refill to allowable maintenance regulations
2.2 Refill interval for light-duty vehicles
2.2.1 Relation to oil change intervals
2.2.2 Length of Maintenance Intervals for Light-Duty Vehicles
2.3 Length of Maintenance Intervals for Chassis-certified Heavy-Duty Vehicles
2.4 Length of Maintenance Intervals for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines
CHAPTER 3: FLEXIBILITY FOR NONROAD ENGINES IN TEMPORARY EMERGENCY
SERVICE
3.1 Purpose and Value of the Rule; Need for the Rule
3.1.1 Need for the Rule
3.2 Scope and Applicability of the Rule
3.2.1 Definition of Emergency Situation
3.3 Certification & Approvals of AECD's for Nonroad Engines & Equipment
3.3.1 Activation of the AECD
3.3.2 Duration of the AECD
-------
Introduction
On May 23, 2012, the Administrator signed a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with
revisions related to emissions controls on diesel-powered emergency vehicles and revisions
related to scheduled maintenance intervals for diesel engines and vehicles using Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR). The NPRM also included revisions to offer short-term relief from
performance inducements related to the emission control system, for general purpose nonroad
engines while operating in temporary emergency service. Also on May 23, that NPRM was
posted on EPA's web site, and a message was sent to interested stakeholders notifying them of
the availability of this material for review and comment. On June 8, 2012, the NPRM was
published in the Federal Register. EPA held a public hearing on the NPRM in Ann Arbor,
Michigan on June 27, 2012. At that hearing, oral comments on the NPRM were received and
recorded. The comment period officially remained open through July 27, 2012. Many
comments were received during that period. A complete list of organizations and individuals
that provided comments on the NPRM is contained in the table below. Abbreviations for the
organization names are also included.
In parallel with the NPRM, a direct final rule (DFR) was signed on May 23, 2012, and
was published on June 8. The DFR included only those portions of the NPRM that contained
revisions related to emission controls on dedicated emergency vehicles. Because none of the
comments on those revisions were deemed adverse, the DFR became effective on August 7,
2012.
After the close of the comment period, EPA received supplemental comments from
stakeholders on the two portions of the rule not included in the DFR. We received additional
comments from manufacturers regarding the proposed SCR maintenance intervals, and we
received information derived from the experiences of Hurricane Sandy regarding the provisions
for nonroad engines that may operate in temporary emergency service.
This Summary and Analysis of Comments contains a summary of the significant
comments we received on the NPRM as well as our analysis of these comments. The reader
should also refer to the final rulemaking notice in the Federal Register.
11
-------
List of Commenters
COMMENTER
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Association of Global Automakers
Caterpillar
Chevron
Cummins
Fire Apparatus Manufacturers
Association
General Motors
Hazen & Sawyer
Joint Water Commission
Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association
National Automobile Dealers Association
National Truck Equipment Association
Nebraska Air Quality Division
Northeastern Area Association of State
Foresters
SCR Engine Manufacturers
Southeastern Association of Fire Chiefs
Southern Group of State Foresters
Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association
ABBREVIATION
AAM
AGA
FAMA
GM
MECA
NADA
NTEA
NAQD
NAASF
SEAFC
SGSF
EMA
DOCKET ID NUMBER
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-)
1032-0037
1032-0038
1032-0040
1032-0026 and -0027
1032-0039
1032-0028
1032-0036
1032-0033
1032-0029
1032-0030
1032-0041
1032-0035
1032-0025
1032-0043
1032-0042
1032-0028
1032-0031
1032-0034
111
-------
List of Acronyms
(im
AECD
AEO
APU
AQ
ARE
ARFF
bhp
bhp-hrs
CAA
CAFE
CFR
CO2
DEF
DOC
DPF
DFR
ED
EEFM
EGR
EO
EPA
EVFM
FR
g
g/s
gal
GHG
GVWR
HD
HHD
hp
hrs
k
kg
km
km/h
kW
L
Ib
LD
Microgram
Micrometers
Auxiliary Emission Control Device
Annual Energy Outlook
Auxiliary Power Unit
Air Quality
California Air Resources Board
Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting
Brake Horsepower
Brake Horsepower Hours
Clean Air Act
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Code of Federal Regulations
Carbon Dioxide
Diesel Exhaust Fluid
Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
Diesel Particulate Filter
Direct Final Rule
Emergency Department
Emergency Equipment Field Modification
Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Executive Order
Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency Vehicle Field Modification
Federal Register
Gram
Gram-per-second
Gallon
Greenhouse Gases
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
Heavy-Duty
Heavy Heavy-Duty
Horsepower
Hours
Thousand
Kilogram
Kilometer
Kilometers per Hour
Kilowatt
Liter
Pound
Light-Duty
IV
-------
LOT
LDV
LT
m2
m3
MD
MDPV
mg
MHD
mi
min
MM
mpg
mph
MY
NA
NAAQS
NAICS
NHTSA
NO2
NOX
NRCI
NPRM
O&M
OAQPS
OE
OEM
OTAQ
PM
PM25
PTO
s
SCR
SO2
SOx
Std.
SUV
SWAT
Tier 4
Light-Duty Trucks
Light-Duty Vehicle
Light Trucks
Square Meters
Cubic Meters
Medium-Duty
Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
Milligram
Medium Heavy-Duty
mile
Minute
Million
Miles per Gallon
Miles per Hour
Model Year
Not Applicable
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
North American Industry Classification System
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Nitrogen Dioxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Nonroad Compression-Ignition
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Operating and Maintenance
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Original Equipment
Original Equipment Manufacturer
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Particulate Matter
Coarse Particulate Matter (diameter of 10 (im or less)
Fine Particulate Matter (diameter of 2.5 (im or less)
Power Take Off
Second
Selective Catalytic Reduction
Sulfur Dioxide
Oxides of Sulfur
Standard
Sport Utility Vehicle
Special Weapons and Tactics
Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Regulations, published June 29, 2004
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
VI
-------
CHAPTER 1: Flexibility for Emergency Vehicles
What We Proposed:
The comments in this section generally correspond to Section IV of the preamble to the
proposed rule, where we describe proposed flexibilities for dedicated emergency vehicles.
1.1 Purpose and Value of the Rule; Need for the Rule
1.1.1 Need for the Rule
What Commenters Said:
"Across the United States ever since we opened this up we've got flooded by emails and different
letters and phone calls of people that were having issues with these regeneration issues, so that's
kind of what got us to try to get some amended rulemakings to the process to where we could
actually do our business and not have to worry about someone getting hurt or killed in the
process, so again, thank you for what you do and thank you for listening to us." (SEAFC)
"We believe that a light and buzzer strategy is much more appropriate to emergency vehicles
than a strategy that limits the speed of the vehicle, or in other ways hampers its ability to perform
life-saving tasks." (FAMA)
All wildland fire suppression agencies use diesel powered dozers of various sizes to construct
firebreaks in order to stop advancing wildfires. Often these firebreaks are constructed in close
proximity to the wildfire. Numerous injuries and fatalities of wildland firefighters have occurred
when dozers became disabled due to terrain such as becoming stuck or various mechanical
reasons, while constructing firebreaks in front of advancing wildfires. It would obviously be
extremely dangerous to have dozers with emission control systems or settings that could lead to
dozers losing power, speed, or torque while constructing firebreaks in advance of an oncoming
wildfire. (SGSF)
"EMA supports the emergency vehicle revisions proposed in the DFR and believes that they will
enable emergency vehicles to perform their critical life-saving work without risk of incurring
certain non-routine emission control system conditions that can result in decreased engine power,
speed, or torque. By excluding certain AECDs designed to avert this situation from the definition
of "defeat device," EPA is taking important steps to prevent the unacceptable scenario where an
emergency vehicle is not able to properly respond to an emergency solely because of the timing
of a regeneration event or the need for a DEF refill." (EMA)
Commenters:
Keith Brown/SEAFC (0028)
Roger Lackore/FAMA (0028)
Linda Casey/Southern Group of State Foresters (0031)
Jed Mandel/EMA (0034)
-------
1.1.2 Support for the rule
What Commenters Said:
"FAMA supports the actions of the EPA to provide flexibility with regard to the emissions
certification of compression-ignition engines in emergency vehicles. Our support extends to all
aspects of the Direct Final Rule, and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking affecting diesel
particulate filter operation . . . FAMA also supports the intent to relax the inducement strategies
related to the diesel exhaust fluid." (FAMA)
MECA supports EPA's proposal to amend its heavy-duty diesel engine programs to specifically
allow engine manufacturers to request to deploy specific emission controls or settings for new
and in-use engines that are sold for use only in emergency vehicles. (MECA)
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers supports adoption of the "Heavy-duty Highway
Program: Revisions for Emergency Vehicles" DFR published June 8, 2012. The allowances
contained in the DFR will provide significant relief to emergency vehicle operators that currently
must contend with potential loss of vehicle performance while executing critical emergency
relief operations. Simultaneously, it provides vehicle manufacturers with a clear regulatory
pathway for introducing enabling technologies. (AAM)
EMA supports EPA's efforts to take immediate action to avoid potential power loss on
emergency vehicles related to normal engine regeneration operation during emergency
situations. (EMA)
"The SGSF supports the actions taken by EPA related to the revision of heavy-duty diesel
regulations for emergency vehicles and equipment." (SGSF)
"We agree with EPA's assertion that additional flexibility for manufacturers to enable more
passive and automatic active regenerations would help to improve reliability by preventing the
need for inadvertent regeneration during emergency vehicle operations. The extended idling
periods that can be experienced by ambulances during 'ready status' and/or short drive durations
have previously resulted in high rate of buildup of soot in DPFs which have led to vehicles
requiring dedicated regeneration periods to clean the filters and in some cases, exhaust service at
a dealership. Providing additional flexibility to engine/chassis manufacturers to create an
appropriate strategy of active/passive and manual/automatic regeneration for emergency
vehicles, while consequently not counting the resulting increase in NOX emissions that may be
associated with it against their certification will help prevent similar issues in the future."
(NTEA/AMD)
"Cummins supports the direct final rule and notice of proposed rulemaking EPA published to
allow regulatory flexibility for emergency vehicles against abnormal conditions that would
prevent the loss of speed, torque, or power. We agree with EPA that it is important to prevent
these conditions from occurring during emergency operation of dedicated emergency vehicles in
order to ensure the public's health and safety." (Cummins)
"Since performance or control compromises may pose real public safety risks for in-use
emergency vehicles, NADA/ATD generally supports EPA's Auxiliary Emission Control Device
-------
and Emergency Vehicle Field Modification proposals for diesel-equipped fire fighting vehicles
and ambulances." (NADA)
NAASF supports EPA's direct rule revising its heavy-duty diesel regulations to enable
emergency vehicles, particularly those used in wildfire suppression, to perform without risking
decreased engine power, speed or torque during emergency wildfire activities. (NAASF)
Commenters:
Roger Lackore/FAMA (0028)
Jamie Song/MECA (0030)
Linda Casey/Southern Group of State Foresters (0031)
Jed Mandel/EMA (0034)
Mike Kastner/NTEA/AMD (0035)
Giedrius Ambrozaitis/AAM (0037)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Douglas Greenhaus/NADA (0041)
Christopher Martin/Northeast Area Association of State Foresters (0043)
Our Response:
We agree that it would not be acceptable for emission controls to interfere with the
operation of emergency vehicles. As described later in this document as well as the preamble to
the Final Rule, we believe that the provisions being adopted will address this concern.
1.2 Scope and Applicability of the Rule
1.2.1 Definition of Emergency Vehicle for On-Road Vehicles
We proposed to consider only fire tricks and ambulances to be "emergency vehicles" for
purposes of these emergency vehicle provisions.
(A) Expand to Include Broader Range of Vehicles
What Commenters Said:
The only aspect of the Direct Final Rule where we have recommendations to make concerns the
Agency's definition of ambulance and fire truck. We feel that these definitions may preclude
other specialty emergency vehicles with similar duty cycles, such as rescue trucks, command and
communication apparatus, SWAT vehicles, or other vocational vehicles used for emergency
response, but that are not directly associated with either fire suppression or patient transport.
Therefore, FAMA proposes to replace the definitions of the fire truck and ambulance with a
general definition of emergency vehicle as follows: "Emergency vehicle: a vocational vehicle or
other mobile equipment designed to be used under emergency conditions such as fire
suppression, patient transport, police activity, or homeland security operations." We believe this
broader definition will encompass the range of vehicles susceptible to the problem this
rulemaking is intended to address. (FAMA)
-------
The Alliance recommends that the DFR's definition of "emergency vehicle" be broadened to
include law enforcement, ambulances and ambulance-hearse combinations, fire suppression,
search and rescue and other emergency vehicle types. If broadened as described, this definition
could also serve to replace the potentially conflicting definition proposed by EPA at 40 CFR
86.1818-12. (76 Fed. Reg. 75362, Dec. 1, 2011) (AAM)
Commenters:
Roger Lackore/FAMA (0028)
Giedrius Ambrozaitis/AAM (0037)
(B) Retain Proposed Definition Without Expanding to Include Other
Vehicles
What Commenters Said:
MECA also believes that EPA should tightly define the range and scope of emergency vehicles
that can employ emission system modifications to ensure that any relief is implemented on a
relatively small number of vehicles. (MECA)
"The proposed definitions of emergency vehicle, emergency equipment, ambulance, and fire
truck are appropriate. It is appreciated that the proposed language for ambulance and fire truck
definitions align with definitions already established by these respective industries. By using
industry established emergency vehicle definitions, confusion over how and when to apply these
proposed regulations can be avoided. Cummins also agrees with EPA on defining emergency
vehicle as only ambulances and fire trucks and emergency equipment as only aircraft rescue and
fire-fighting (ARFF) vehicles and wildland fire apparatus. By limiting the proposed flexibilities
to only this specific equipment that will directly respond in emergency situations, the possibility
of abusing this flexibility is limited and the impact to the environment is minimized without
jeopardizing the public's health or safety." (Cummins)
Commenters:
Jamie Song/MECA (0030)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Our Response:
EPA has received no information with specific examples of vehicles in use having
reduced performance due to the emission control system, where the vehicle was not either an
ambulance, fire truck, or dedicated emergency equipment under our current definitions. While
we agree with commenters MECA and Cummins that a narrow definition of emergency vehicle
is generally appropriate, EPA has considered whether there may be other types of dedicated
emergency, rescue or police vehicles for which the flexibilities of this rule may be warranted. To
address this, we have added a provision to the definition of emergency vehicle at 40 CFR
86.1803-01 to allow manufacturers to apply to EPA to receive this flexibility for additional
vehicles if we determine they will likely be regularly used in emergency situations where
emission control function or malfunction may cause a significant risk to human life. This added
-------
provision allows engine manufacturers to submit applications for AECD's (associated with new
certifications) and EVFM's (field modifications) for review on a case-by-case basis by EPA.
These procedures are described in the preamble to the rule at Section V. A.
Below in Section 1.4.2, EPA addresses AAM's comment regarding a potential conflict
between the definition of emergency vehicle at 40 CFR 86.1818-12 and the definition at 40 CFR
86.1803-01, adopted in the direct final rule (77 FR 34130).
1.2.2 Definition of Emergency Equipment for Nonroad Equipment
We proposed to include two types of vehicles as "emergency equipment":
(1) Specialized vehicles used to perform aircraft rescue and fire-fighting functions
at airports, with particular emphasis on saving lives and reducing injuries
coincident with aircraft fires following impact or aircraft ground fires.
(2) Wildland fire apparatus, which includes any apparatus equipped with a slip-on
fire-fighting module, designed primarily to support wildland fire suppression
operations. Expand to Include Other Wildland Fire Suppression Equipment
What Commenters Said:
(A) Expand to Include Broader Range of Vehicles
The SGSF notes that in this direct final rule EPA includes wildland fire apparatus in the
definition of emergency equipment. The SGSF asks that EPA specifically include wildfire
suppression dozers, dozer transport trucks, wildland fire engines and other wildland fire
apparatus in the definition of emergency equipment. Wildland fire suppression agencies also use
diesel powered trucks to transport wildfire suppression dozers to and from the scene of wildfires
as well as diesel powered wildland engines to pump water or other suppressants onto wildfires.
Use of emission control systems or settings that could lead to these dozer transports or wildland
engines losing power, speed, or torque while en route to or suppressing a wildfire would interfere
with the critical mission of wildland fire suppression agencies. (SGSF)
NAASF supports the comments submitted by the Southern Group of State Foresters in amending
the definition of emergency equipment by replacing "wildland fire apparatus" with "wildfire
suppression dozers, dozer transport trucks, wildland fire engines and other wildland fire
apparatus." Diesel-powered trucks are also used to transport wildfire suppression dozers to and
from the scene of wildfires, and diesel-powered engines are used to pump water or other
suppressants onto wildfires. It is equally important to ensure that the use of emission control
systems or settings in these engines do not increase the probability of losing power, speed, or
torque while en route to or suppressing a wildfire. (NAASF)
Commenters:
Linda Casey/Southern Group of State Foresters (0031)
Christopher Martin/Northeast Area Association of State Foresters (0043)
-------
(B) Retain Proposed Definition Without Expanding to Include Other
Equipment
What Commenters Said:
"The proposed definitions of emergency vehicle, emergency equipment, ambulance, and fire
truck are appropriate. It is appreciated that the proposed language for ambulance and fire truck
definitions align with definitions already established by these respective industries. By using
industry established emergency vehicle definitions, confusion over how and when to apply these
proposed regulations can be avoided. Cummins also agrees with EPA on defining emergency
vehicle as only ambulances and fire trucks and emergency equipment as only aircraft rescue and
fire-fighting (ARFF) vehicles and wildland fire apparatus. By limiting the proposed flexibilities
to only this specific equipment that will directly respond in emergency situations, the possibility
of abusing this flexibility is limited and the impact to the environment is minimized without
jeopardizing the public's health or safety." (Cummins)
Commenter:
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Our Response:
EPA has received no information with examples of any in-use nonroad dedicated
emergency equipment having reduced performance due to the emission control system. We
adopted these provisions as a precaution in the event that regulatory flexibilities are needed in
the future. We continue to believe that a narrow definition of emergency equipment is
appropriate. Further, EPA has considered whether our current definition may inadvertently
cover some general purpose vehicles or equipment, as well as whether there may be other types
of equipment for which the flexibilities of this rule may be warranted. Both the SGSF and
NAASF request inclusion of wildfire suppression dozers, dozer transport trucks, wildland fire
engines and other wildland fire apparatus in our definition of emergency equipment. Under our
definition of emergency equipment at 40 CFR 1039.801, it was our intent to cover specialized
equipment such as wildfire suppression dozers, and in this action we are revising the definition to
more clearly cover them. To the extent any wildland fire engines and other wildland fire
apparatus are registered as motor vehicles, they are included in our definition of emergency
vehicle (See Section 1.2.1, above) and covered by the provisions of 40 CFR part 86. We do not
believe that dozer transport trucks that are not specialized for emergency service would be
included in the definitions of either emergency vehicle or emergency equipment. In this action,
we are revising the definition of emergency equipment at part 1039 to clarify what engines we
intended to cover and exclude.
To the extent there are other types of nonroad equipment in regular emergency service
that may be identified in the future as needing these flexibilities, we are adding provisions at 40
CFR 1039.801 allowing for engine manufacturers to submit applications for AECD's (associated
with new certifications) and EEFM's (field modifications) for review on a case-by-case basis by
EPA. These procedures are described in the preamble to the rule at Section V.B.
-------
In response to the comment suggesting EPA should avoid any loss of performance on
diesel-powered engines that are used to pump water or other suppressants onto wildfires, we
agree. To the extent these engines are in dedicated emergency service and are not fixed in one
location for longer than 12 months, we expect they would be covered under the newly revised
definition of emergency equipment. See further explanation in EPA's response to comments
1.2.2 (C) and (D) below.
(C) Expand to Include Engines for Fire Pumps
What Commenters Said:
I notice there is no mention of diesel engines for fire pumps (either fixed or portable). These too
are also mission critical.
Commenters:
Lindsay Hamilton/Chevron (0026/0027)
(D) Application to Engines for Stationary Emergency Power
Generation
What Commenters Said:
In §1039, you added language for "emergency equipment" in reference to emergency response
equipment. This could be confused with emergency engines that are subject to NSPS Subpart IIII
(40 CFR 60), which reference 40 CFR 1039. The emergency engines used in NSPS are for
emergency power at stationary sources. Suggest you change "emergency equipment" to
"emergency response equipment" for clarification. (Nebraska AQD)
"Currently, a Compression Ignition engine-driven electric generator set ('gen-set') that serves
both an emergency and non-emergency function must use a certified non-emergency engine. The
certified engine configuration must induce the operator to repair emissions related malfunctions;
this is achieved with gen-sets by an automatic forced shutdown of the engine. However, during
an emergency situation, when normal power is interrupted, a forced shutdown (inducement) of
the gen-set will be unacceptable for some applications and/or some circumstances. . . .
Therefore, we suggest the definition of "emergency situation" (for gen-sets) proposed in 40
C.F.R. § 1039.665 align with "emergency stationary internal combustion engine" definition set
forth in 40 C.F.R. § 60.4219 when the normal power source is interrupted. This would facilitate
the use of an SCR inducement override when operating certified non-emergency gen-set engines
in emergency gen-set applications. With the override, gen-sets can continue to run in the event of
normal power source interruption and faults within the aftertreatment system." (Joint Water
Commission)
Commenters:
Stephenie Moyer/Nebraska Air Quality Division (0025)
Tyler Wubbena/Joint Water Commission (0029)
-------
Our Response:
The application of this rule to general purpose nonroad engines used in temporary
emergency situations is addressed in Section 3.2, below in this document. However, because
these comments touch on the issue of the definition of emergency equipment, we are providing a
response here.
The final definition of "emergency equipment" allows EPA to classify some portable
gen-sets as emergency equipment, where the manufacturer demonstrates that they will regularly
be used in emergency situations where emission control function or malfunction may cause a
significant risk to human life. In making such a determination, we would consider all relevant
factors that affect on the totality of the actual risk to human life. For example, we may consider
how frequently the equipment will be used in emergency situations or how likely it is that the
emission controls will cause a significant risk to human life when the equipment is used in
emergency situations. We would also consider to what extent the flexibility provisions of
§1039.665 already address the risk.
It is also important to note that we believe that many emergency gen-sets would be
considered to be stationary engines as defined in 40 CFR 1068.30. As such, they would be
outside the scope of this rule. This rule was proposed solely as a revision to the regulations for
nonroad engines, which previously had no special provisions for dedicated emergency engines or
non-dedicated engines used in emergency circumstances. It was not intended to create any
changes to the existing regulations for stationary engines. Stationary engines are subject to
different statutory provisions and any revision to the provisions for such engines would need to
be made consistent with those statutory provisions. In addition, the pre-existing regulations for
stationary engines already contain provisions for emergency engines that do not require
aftertreatment-forcing standards for such engines. These provisions were promulgated over
several rulemakings under the statutory sections applicable to stationary engines. Any changes
to the treatment of stationary engines would need to be done under those statutory sections in the
context of a rule regulating stationary engines.
1.3 Certification & Approvals of AECD's, EVFM's and EEFM's for New and
Existing Engines/Vehicles/Equipment
1.3.1 Degree of Relief Offered
What Commenters Said:
While these provisions do offer limited relief from the latest emission standards for these
engines, PM emissions reductions from these emergency vehicles may still be achieved through
the general requirement that the use of engines must meet the most stringent and practical
emission standards. (MECA)
Cummins would like to encourage EPA when approving any Auxiliary Emission Control
Devices (AECDs), Emergency Vehicle Field Modifications (EVFMs), or Emergency Equipment
Field Modifications (EEFMs) to only approve approaches that utilize a minimum strategy. In
other words, Cummins would like to see only AECDs, EVFMs, or EEFMs that only change the
-------
engine from its normal operation only as much as needed to avoid the loss of speed, torque or
power. This minimum strategy approach ensures that vehicles can still respond as needed while
creating only the smallest environmental impact. (Cummins)
Additionally, NTEA and AMD agree with provisions for a "failsafe measure" that could be
employed to prevent engine exhaust backpressure from limiting engine speed, torque or power or
causing engine shutdown. We understand that this would be a temporary operation where the
pressure relief function would be suspended when the back pressure returns to its intended range
and do not see a need for further provisions beyond this. (NTEA/AMD)
Commenters:
Jamie Song/MECA (0030)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Mike Kastner/NTEA/AMD (0035)
Our Response:
We recognize the concerns expressed by the commenters and are committed to ensuring
that manufacturers apply good engineering judgment to prevent unnecessary emissions.
1.3.2 Timing of Certification Process
What Commenters Said:
In order to ensure that emergency vehicles already in service perform properly in emergency
situations, it may be necessary to implement an EVFM. As set forth in the DFR, prior to
distributing or installing an EVFM the manufacturer must (i) notify EPA in writing of its intent
to install or distribute the EVFM and (ii) include with such notification a full description of the
EVFM and documentation supporting the determination that the EVFM is necessary to prevent
the emergency vehicle from losing speed, torque, or power due to abnormal conditions of its
emission control system (or to prevent such abnormal conditions from occurring during
operation related to an emergency response). In those cases where an EVFM may not be installed
or distributed without EPA's prior approval, it is crucial that EPA review and approve such an
EVFM in a timely manner. In the event a manufacturer proposes an EVFM that is not
comparable to a previously approved EVFM, the DFR requires the manufacturer to obtain EPA's
prior approval before such EVFM is installed or distributed. See §85.1716(c)(3). However, the
DFR fails to ensure EPA's timely response to such requests. It must in order to meet EPA's
stated public safety objectives. The proposed regulatory language fails to (i) include any
requirement that EPA request such additional information in a timely manner or (ii) require EPA
to provide a timely, or even any, response acknowledging the receipt of such requested
additional information. While §85.1716(c)(3)(iii) provides that such a proposed new EVFM is
deemed approved 30 days after EPA acknowledges that the manufacturer has provided EPA with
all requested additional information, the failure to establish a timeframe within which EPA must
request such information or acknowledge the receipt of such information is a glaring omission
that must be addressed. Accordingly, the regulatory text must be revised to require EPA to
request additional information with respect to an EVFM not used previously in an approved
-------
application in a timely manner. If EPA fails to request additional information with respect to
such new EVFM within 30 days after the manufacturer submits its application, the EVFM should
be deemed approved. Similarly, in the event EPA requests additional information within the 30
day timeframe, the EVFM should be deemed approved 30 days after EPA receives the requested
additional information unless EPA notifies the manufacturer otherwise.
Commenters:
Jed Mandel/EMA (0034)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Robert Babik/GM (0036)
Our Response:
More than a year elapsed after the DFR became effective before the Agency received a
formal application for an AECD or EVFM from a manufacturer wishing to take advantage of
these provisions. We are committed to approving any such applications in a highly expedited
manner, and we do not see a need to revise the timing associated with the applicable review
procedures under 40 CFR part 85.
1.4 General/Miscellaneous Comments on Provisions for Dedicated Emergency
Vehicles & Equipment
1.4.1 Treatment of Emergency Vehicles in the Heavy-Duty GHG Rule
What Commenters Said:
"We would like to remind the EPA that several FAMA member companies expressed concerns
regarding the impact of the Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy rulemaking on emergency
vehicle performance. We pointed out the potential impact of restricting the use of aggressive tire
treads by mandating the use of low rolling resistance tires. Like the DPF and SCR issue, it is
unlikely that the impact of this tire tread restriction will be apparent until lower rolling resistance
tires have been implemented and emergency vehicle users begin to experience reduced off-road
traction and reduced high-speed cornering and maneuverability. As with recent events and
complaints that arose from the Southeast Association of Fire Chiefs, there may be a significant
lag before the true impacts of the Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Efficiency Rules are realized. FAMA
therefore urges the EPA to revisit our previous comments and data on this issue and reconsider
authorizing an emergency vehicle exemption to the rolling resistance requirements now, so that
we can avoid the potential for another hearing like this in the future. The very minimal impact
this action would have on over-all vehicle emissions seems like a small price to pay to avoid
another industry-upsetting event." (FAMA)
Commenters:
Roger Lackore/FAMA (0028)
10
-------
Our Response:
Information available to EPA at this time indicates that the rolling resistance of tires
produced for emergency vehicles in response to the 2011 heavy-duty GHG rule1 will not
adversely affect the vehicles' off-road traction or high-speed cornering and maneuverability.
However, we understand that currently available information may not provide full insight as to
the long term performance impacts of the 2011 GHG rule. The narrow scope of the current final
rule does not allow EPA to make changes in response to this comment in the present rulemaking
action. When EPA next has the opportunity to conduct rulemaking relating to GHG emissions
from commercial trucks, we will carefully review and consider all available tire performance and
safety information. We encourage stakeholders to share additional data with EPA on this issue,
should it become available, and we will consider these data as we are able.
1.4.2 Compatibility with NHTSA's Definition of Emergency Vehicle
What Commenters Said:
"The Alliance recommends that EPA encourage the Secretary of Transportation to adopt the
same definition under his authority set forth at 49 U.S.C. 32902(e). Such action would ensure
harmonized treatment of emergency vehicles under EPA's criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas
emission regulations and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's CAFE
regulations."
Commenters:
Giedrius Ambrozaitis/AAM (0037)
Our Response:
EPA recognizes AAM's comment relates to a potential conflict between the definition of
emergency vehicle at 40 CFR 86.1818-12 and the definition adopted in the direct final rule (77
FR 34130). AAM submitted a similar comment to EPA and NHTSA on July 27, 2012, for
consideration under the light-duty greenhouse gas regulations. In the MY 2012-2016 LD GHG
program, emergency vehicles are completely exempt from inclusion in the calculations for the
fleet average standards. (See 77 FR 62798, October 15, 2012, at Section III.B.8). As described
in the FR notice for those final rules, AAM asked the agencies to consider broadening their
definitions of emergency vehicle beyond the EPC A definition, to include "fire suppression,
search and rescue and other emergency vehicle types," arguing that it is important to ensure
harmonized treatment of emergency vehicles under EPA's criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas
emission regulations and NHTSA's CAFE regulations. (See 77 FR 63127). In the final LD
GHG rules, the agencies retained the EPCA definition of emergency vehicle for the GHG
program, stating that harmonizing between the GHG and criteria pollutant programs may not be
necessary. Although the agencies did not see a need to harmonize these definitions, they agreed
there should be regulatory clarity. Therefore, in that final LD GHG rule, EPA amended 40 CFR
86.1803-01 to clarify that emergency vehicle for purposes of the greenhouse gas emissions
1 See Federal Register dated September 15, 2011, 76 FR 57016.
11
-------
standards is different than emergency vehicle for provisions related to defeat devices and
AECD's. (See 77 FR 63155, and regulatory text below)
§ 86.1803-01 Definitions.
*****
Emergency vehicle means one of the following:
(1) For the greenhouse gas emission standards in §86.1818, emergency vehicle
means a motor vehicle manufactured primarily for use as an ambulance or combination
ambulance-hearse or for use by the United States Government or a State or local
government for law enforcement.
(2) For provisions related to defeat devices and other AECDs under this subpart,
emergency vehicle means a motor vehicle that is an ambulance or a fire truck.
1.4.3 Develop a Public Awareness Program
What Commenters Said:
"While we fully support EPA's actions on this Issue, adoption of these potentially lifesaving
measures is vital we recommend that EPA consider developing a public awareness program
based on the final rule that could be targeted to fire departments and private ambulance
purchasers informing them of the final provisions and the necessity of seeking chassis/engine
products that incorporate them, also cautioning them against using aftermarket products that are
not an approved AECD." (NTEA/AMD)
Commenters:
Mike Kastner/NTEA/AMD (0035)
Our Response:
EPA has spoken at conferences and association meetings for stakeholders in the first
response community as well as for engine and vehicle manufacturers. Further, we have served as
an information clearinghouse between manufacturers and end users to facilitate prompt
resolution of performance issues. We continue to field phone calls and promote higher awareness
of this rule.
CHAPTER 2: Scheduled Maintenance and Maintenance Intervals
for Replenishment of Diesel Exhaust Fluid
The comments in this section generally correspond to Section V of the preamble to the
proposed rule, where we described regulations that would explicitly address replacement of
diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) as part of approved emission-related scheduled maintenance and set
out the permitted maintenance intervals for replacement of DEF on diesel fueled new motor
vehicles, new motor vehicle engines and new nonroad compression-ignition (NRCI) engines.
EPA previously applied the scheduled maintenance requirements for DEF refill through its
12
-------
9
alternate maintenance authority , which allows EPA to approve additional maintenance based on
a manufacturer's demonstration.
2.1 General support for adding DEF refill to allowable maintenance
regulations
What Commenters Said:
Numerous commenters expressed support for EPA's decision to explicitly include DEF
replenishment as allowable maintenance in the regulations. No commenters opposed this
inclusion.
Commenters:
Jamie Song/MECA (0030)
Jed Mandel/EMA (0034)
Robert Babik/GM (0036)
Giedrius Ambrozaitis/AAM (0037)
John Cabaniss/Global Automakers (0038)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Douglas Greenhaus/NADA (0041)
R. Latane Montague/ SCR Engine Manufacturers (0042)
Our Response:
We continue to believe that it is appropriate to include DEF replenishment as allowable
maintenance in the regulations.
2.2 Refill interval for light-duty vehicles
What We Proposed:
For light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks (LDVs and LDTs), we proposed to require
DEF refill intervals at least equal to the scheduled oil change interval for the vehicle. This is
consistent with what EPA had been requiring under the (b)(7) process.
2.2.1 Relation to oil change intervals
What Commenters Said:
Manufacturer comments expressed the concern that tying DEF intervals to oil change intervals
would cause at least one of three problems:
2 The regulations allow manufacturers to request a different maintenance schedule or to request new scheduled
maintenance, which includes maintenance that is a direct result of the implementation of new technology not found
in production prior to the 1980 model year. This allowance is specified in 40 CFR 86.094-25(b)(7) and 40 CFR
86.1834-01(b)(7), and it is sometimes known as the (b)(7) process.
13
-------
• It could prevent extending oil change intervals.
• It could prevent the use of higher dosing rates to increase SCR efficiency.
• It could lead to much larger DEF tanks.
In other words, manufacturers could not increase dosing rates and/or the interval between oil
changes, without substantially increasing DEF tanks sizes.
Manufacturers noted that the proposal would be a disincentive to extend oil change intervals, and
in fact, may create an incentive to actually shorten oil change intervals. Manufacturers noted the
benefits of new automotive and motor oil technologies that allow consumers to drive for greater
miles between oil changes would be reduced if mandated minimum DEF maintenance intervals
are tied to oil change intervals.
Manufacturers noted that some potential strategies to further improve fuel economy will require
higher dosing rates, and that these strategies may be precluded if DEF intervals are required to
keep up with ever increasing oil change intervals because of the tank size that would be required.
(Note that since these comments are also related to the length of the interval, they are also
addressed in section 2.2.2.)
Finally, the Alliance commented that "the connection between SCR maintenance intervals and
oil change intervals is unnecessary" for two reasons. First they noted that "warnings and
inducements can be designed to compel owners to add DEF at any predetermined mileage,
providing strong assurances that the customers will refill the DEF tank at appropriate intervals."
They also noted that "DEF is now ubiquitously available almost everywhere, at fueling stations,
convenience stores, and auto parts stores, on an availability level almost equal to that of
windshield washer fluid or motor oil." AGA provided similar comments.
Commenters:
Robert Babik/GM (0036)
Giedrius Ambrozaitis/AAM (0037)
John Cabaniss/Global Automakers (0038)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Douglas Greenhaus/NADA (0041)
R. Latane Montague/ SCR Engine Manufacturers (0042)
Our Response:
We agree with the manufacturers that DEF refill should be decoupled from oil changes.
We believe that longer oil change intervals are beneficial, in that they provide a cost savings for
the consumer and generally also provide an environmental benefit by reducing the amount of
waste oil generated. Moreover, one of the initial reasons for tying DEF refills to oil changes for
light-duty vehicles as the new technology was introduced was to substantially increase the
likelihood of proper refills for consumers who were unfamiliar with DEF. However, as SCR
technology has become more conventional and DEF has become more available, operators are
much more likely to be familiar with DEF. For those few who may be initially unfamiliar with
14
-------
the need to refill DEF, the warning lights and performance inducements will be sufficient to
ensure proper refills.
Comments related to the size of the DEF tank and dosing rates are addressed in the next
section.
2.2.2 Length of Maintenance Intervals for Light-Duty Vehicles
What Commenters Said:
Light-duty manufacturers commented that longer DEF intervals would have adverse
consequences. The Alliance stated that it takes approximately an 8 gallon DEF (72 pound) tank
to assure the DEF will last for the length of a typical scheduled oil change interval. AGA made
similar comments. They both argued that space is already constrained on light-duty vehicles and
may become more so as vehicles become smaller to meet greenhouse gas standards. They also
noted that the additional weight would increase fuel consumption.
The Alliance also noted that some potential strategies to further improve fuel economy will
require higher dosing rates, and that these strategies may be precluded if DEF intervals are
required to keep up with ever increasing oil change intervals because of the tank size that would
be required. They recommended that the minimum DEF refill interval in miles be ten times the
range of a single tank of fuel for vehicles that do not display DEF tank level, and eight times the
range for vehicles that do. Others argued for refill interval ratios as low as 3:1.
Commenters:
Robert Babik/GM (0036)
Giedrius Ambrozaitis/AAM (0037)
John Cabaniss/Global Automakers (0038)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Douglas Greenhaus/NADA (0041)
R. Latane Montague/ SCR Engine Manufacturers (0042)
Our Response:
We agree that the minimum refill interval should be less than manufacturer's current
recommended oil change interval (which is typically 6,000 to 10,000 miles) to address concerns
about the size and weight of DEF tanks needed to achieve longer refill intervals. Given the
widespread retail availability of DEF and the severe inducements against operating the vehicle
without DEF, we see little if any environmental benefit from requiring longer intervals.
We disagree that the minimum interval should be based on the range of the fuel tank for
light-duty vehicles. While relating DEF and fuel refills makes sense when the ratio is in the 1:1
or 2:1 range, it is not necessarily appropriate when the ratio is in the 8:1 or 10:1 range. At these
higher ratios, DEF refills become sufficiently infrequent that operators will not think in terms of
fuel refills. Rather, they are much more likely to think in terms of actual miles between DEF
refills.
15
-------
For the Final Rule, we are setting the minimum DEF interval for light-duty vehicles at 4,000
miles. This value is roughly consistent with the intervals recommended by the Alliance, as well
as the typical oil change intervals when we first tied DEF refill to oil change. At 4,000 miles, a
vehicle with a 400 mile fuel range would need to refill the DEF tank no more frequently than
every tenth fuel fill up. For operators who change oil every 7,500 miles and fill the DEF tank
when they do, no more than one DEF refill would be needed between oil changes. Regarding
comments that the minimum interval be as low as three times the range of the fuel refill interval,
we still believe it is necessary to require substantially longer DEF intervals for LDVs and LDTs
than for commercial heavy-duty vehicles because of the wider range of usage patterns of light-
duty vehicles. Most significantly, these light-duty vehicles are more likely to refuel at
neighborhood refueling stations that may not have DEF. Ensuring that these vehicles can go
through several tanks of fuel before needing to refill the DEF tanks reduces the likelihood that
operators will allow the DEF tank to become completely empty.
2.3 Length of Maintenance Intervals for Chassis-certified Heavy-Duty
Vehicles
What We Proposed:
This section addresses chassis-certified heavy-duty diesel vehicles, which are typically
larger versions of light-duty pickup trucks and vans. For these vehicles, we proposed to require
DEF refill intervals at least equal to the scheduled oil change interval for the vehicle, just as we
did for LDTs. This is consistent with what EPA had been requiring under the (b)(7) process.
What Commenters Said:
The Alliance noted in a footnote to its comments that its comments applied equally to chassis-
certified heavy-duty vehicles. See Section 2.2 for a summary of these comments.
Several engine manufacturers using SCR recommended that the minimum DEF refill interval in
miles be five times the range of a single tank of fuel for vehicles that do not display DEF tank
level, and three times the range for vehicles that do. They argue that "a 3:1 ratio correctly
positions these vehicles between the light-duty vehicles and the engine-certified heavy-duty
vehicles, and avoids imposing excessive obligations on chassis-certified products" and that
"these recommended ratios will provide reasonable SCR maintenance intervals for motorists, and
at the same time avoid creating obstacles to technology advances that would enable less frequent
oil changes." Cummins made similar comments.
Commenters:
Giedrius Ambrozaitis/AAM (0037)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Douglas Greenhaus/NADA (0041)
R. Latane Montague/ SCR Engine Manufacturers (0042)
16
-------
Our Response:
For the same reasons given in section 2.2, we believe that tying DEF refills to oil changes
is no more appropriate for complete heavy-duty pickups and vans than for LDVs or LDTs. Thus,
the final regulations set the minimum DEF refill interval for complete heavy-duty pickups and
vans based on miles rather than fuel capacity.
The final regulations are setting the minimum DEF refill interval for complete heavy-
duty pickups and vans to the same 4,000 mile level as for LDVs and LDTs. As noted in the
previous section, 4,000 miles is roughly consistent with the intervals recommended by the
Alliance, as well as the typical oil change intervals when we first tied DEF refill to oil change.
However, Cummins and other manufacturers using SCR recommended an interval as low as
three times the fuel capacity. This would mean that a vehicle with a 400 mile fuel range would
need to refill the DEF tank approximately every 1,200 miles. We believe this is too frequent.
We still believe it is necessary to require substantially longer DEF intervals for these complete
heavy-duty vehicles because many will have usage patterns similar to light-duty vehicles. Most
significantly, unlike larger commercial vehicles, many of these vehicles will refuel at
neighborhood refueling stations that may not have DEF. Ensuring that these vehicles can go
through several tanks of fuel before needing to refill the DEF tanks reduces the likelihood that
operators will allow the DEF tank to become completely empty.
2.4 Length of Maintenance Intervals for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines
What We Proposed:
This section addresses diesel engines that are not chassis-certified. These engines are
typically used in vehicles over 14,000 pounds GVWR, as well as in smaller incomplete heavy-
duty vehicles. For these vehicles, we proposed to base DEF intervals on the range of the vehicle
operation (in miles or hours) of a tank of fuel rather than a fixed number of miles or hours. More
specifically, we proposed an interval equal to the range (in miles or hours) of the vehicle
operation that is no less than the vehicle's fuel capacity (i.e., a 1:1 ratio), for vocational vehicles
such as dump trucks, concrete mixers, refuse trucks and similar typically centrally fueled
applications. For all other vehicles we proposed a DEF tank refill interval equal to no less than
twice the range of vehicle's fuel capacity (i.e., a 2:1 ratio).
What Commenters Said:
Commenters said that the minimum DEF to fuel range ratio should be 1:1 for all heavy-duty
motor vehicle engines. They commented that longer intervals would be both unnecessary and
environmentally counterproductive. They argued they are unnecessary because the combination
of the severity of the performance inducements and the widespread availability of DEF. They
also believe that would be counterproductive because they would adversely impact fuel
consumption, either by preventing increased dosing rates or by increasing vehicle weight
because of larger DEF tanks.
Manufacturers also provided supplemental comments recommending that if EPA plans to require
that manufacturers base tank size on "worst case" conditions, we should clarify what this means.
17
-------
They recommended that EPA should generally limit this to considering DEF and fuel
consumption over the two certification test cycles (i.e., the FTP transient test and the SET).
Commenters:
Jed Mandel/EMA (0034)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
R. Latane Montague/ SCR Engine Manufacturers (0042)
Our Response:
EPA believes it is reasonable to base the DEF refilling intervals for heavy-duty on diesel
refueling intervals because DEF refill for heavy-duty trucks is most commonly undertaken at the
time of fuel refill due to DEF infrastructure developed at highway truck stops. For these
engines, we are finalizing a DEF tank refill interval equal to the range (in miles or hours) of the
vehicle operation that is no less than the vehicle's fuel capacity (i.e., a 1:1 ratio). We now
believe that requiring a 2:1 ratio for vehicles not centrally-fueled is not necessary. As the
commenters noted, DEF is widely available at commercial refueling stations and the
performance inducements will effectively prevent operation without DEF.
Consistent with the supplemental comments from manufacturers, the final regulations
explain that worst case conditions may be selected based on the FTP and SET test cycles.
2.5 Length of Maintenance Intervals for Nonroad Diesel Engines
What We Proposed:
This section addresses nonroad diesel engines. For these vehicles, we proposed to base
DEF intervals on the range of the equipment operation (in hours) of a tank of fuel rather than a
fixed number of hours. More specifically, we proposed an interval equal to the range (in miles
or hours) of the vehicle operation that is no less than the vehicle's fuel capacity (i.e., a 1:1 ratio),
What Commenters Said:
Commenters supported EPA's proposal. Manufacturers also provided supplemental comments
recommending that if EPA plans to require that manufacturers base tank size on "worst case"
conditions, we should clarify what this means.
Commenters:
Jed Mandel/EMA (0034)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Our Response:
EPA continues to believe it is reasonable to base the DEF refilling intervals for on diesel
refueling intervals because DEF refill for nonroad is most commonly undertaken at the time of
18
-------
fuel refill. For these engines, we are finalizing a DEF tank refill interval equal to the range (in
hours) of the equipment operation that is no less than the equipment's fuel capacity (i.e., a 1:1
ratio).
Consistent with the supplemental comments from manufacturers, the final regulations
explain that worst case conditions may be selected based on the certification test cycles.
Specifically, the regulations describe (as an example) that a manufacturer may evaluate
individual modes of the steady-state test cycle to determine which one represents worst case
operation. The example includes a note that allows the manufacturer to exclude any test point
that does not represent actual in-use operation. The most likely mode for this to apply would be
for the full power mode since many engines are designed for intermittent rather than continuous
operation at full power. The intent of the example is to clarify that, for certification purposes,
manufacturers are not required to exhaustively evaluate every possible operating mode to
ascertain the worst case. We believe that the worst steady-state test mode should adequately
represent the worst-case in-use operation for most engines. Since the regulations broadly require
manufacturers to apply good engineering judgment when sizing tanks, we believe this approach
should be sufficient for certification. Moreover, manufacturers have a strong market incentive to
properly size the DEF tanks to avoid customers facing performance inducements due to the DEF
tank running dry before the fuel tank does.
CHAPTER 3: Flexibility for Nonroad Engines in Temporary
Emergency Service
What We Proposed:
The comments in this section generally correspond to Section VI of the preamble to the
proposed rule, where we describe the proposed revisions to allow general purpose nonroad
engines to obtain temporary relief so that emission controls do not hinder the engine's
performance in limited emergency situations.
3.1 Purpose and Value of the Rule; Need for the Rule
3.1.1 Need for the Rule
What Commenters Said:
Diesel powered nonroad equipment (such as backhoes, tractors, bulldozers, excavators, wheel
loaders, generators, etc.) is employed to save lives, property, and infrastructure crucial to the
preservation of human life, public safety and national security. Such equipment is used all over
the nation to respond to car crashes, mine collapses, hurricanes, entrapments, terrorist attacks and
a plethora of other catastrophes. Accordingly, it is imperative that nonroad diesel engines are
available to respond to such emergency situations at full capacity - without loss of power caused
by the functioning (or malfunctioning) of emission controls. It is critical that EPA provide
flexibility in its regulations to ensure that nonroad equipment used temporarily in emergency
operations may continue to operate to ameliorate the emergency and save lives without having to
19
-------
be concerned that the functioning (or nonfunctioning) of emission controls could lead to a
mission disabling inducement. EMA strongly supports the adoption of such flexibility and urges
EPA to finalize the rule promptly. (EMA)
".. .a forced shutdown of the gen-sets . . . could interfere with our ability to produce and supply
drinking water in an extended power outage . . . Throughout our facilities and operations, we
cannot predict when gen-sets will be supporting emergency situations; and, we must enable the
operator to make that determination as conditions arise. Nor do we expect EPA could foresee all
critical circumstances associated with power generation and should likewise enable end users to
make that determination as the need arises." (Joint Water Commission)
"Caterpillar agrees that there is a need for AECDs to maintain operation of mobile and stationary
equipment during emergency situations" (Caterpillar)
MECA agrees with EPA that temporary flexibility may be appropriate to allow SCR-equipped
off-road engines to operate without DEF in emergency circumstances. SCR is a proven, durable
NOx reduction technology for mobile sources. SCR applications have also been introduced
recently on a range of off-road diesel engines to comply with EPA's interim Tier 4 emission
standards and off-road SCR applications are expected to expand significantly in the coming few
years as OEMs certify new off-road diesel engines to EPA's final Tier 4 emission limits.
With respect to EPA's proposal to add provisions to 40 CFR §1039 that would allow engine
manufacturers to implement temporary AECDs that override inducements in case of an
emergency, Cummins supports comments submitted by EMA. EPA should finalize its proposal
to allow inducement overrides for nonroad machines used temporarily in emergency situations
(Cummins)
Commenters:
Tyler Wubbena/Joint Water Commission (0029)
Jed Mandel/EMA (0034)
Rey Agama/Caterpillar (0040)
Jamie Song/MECA (0030)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Our Response:
We agree these provisions are prudent and would allow manufacturers the flexibility to
ensure their SCR-equipped engine/emission systems are durable and reliable, even during
extreme emergency situations.
20
-------
3.2 Scope and Applicability of the Rule
3.2.1 Definition of Emergency Situation
What We Proposed:
While the proposed regulations did not include a separate definition for "emergency
situation," they did note in §1039.665 that for purposes of that section, we would consider an
emergency situation to be "one in which the functioning (or malfunctioning) of emission controls
poses a significant risk to human life."
What Commenters Said:
"We suggest the definition of "emergency situation" (for gen-sets) proposed in 40 C.F.R. §
1039.665 align with "emergency stationary internal combustion engine" definition set forth in 40
C.F.R. § 60.4219 when the normal power source is interrupted. This would facilitate the use of
an SCR inducement override when operating certified non-emergency gen-set engines in
emergency gen-set applications. With the override, gen-sets can continue to run in the event of
normal power source interruption and faults within the aftertreatment system." (Joint Water
Commission; Hazen & Sawyer)
EPA should confirm that its definition of "emergency situation" encompasses situations that pose
not only an immediate or direct "significant risk to human life", but also those that pose an
indirect or delayed risk to human life such as emergencies that threaten national security or
public safety, such as disruptions to the nation's air traffic control system, banking systems,
communication networks, or other key components to the Nation's infrastructure. (EMA)
Caterpillar recommends that the definition be expanded to include the risk of damage to property
where human life may not be directly at risk or the potential risk to human life is unknown, such
as when addressing approaching flood waters, earthquake damaged structures, or other threats to
public safety. The EPA should modify the definition of "emergency situation" in the regulatory
text to clarify that the risk of damage to property or threats to public safety justifies the use of
this AECD.
The definition of an emergency situation should include indirect or delayed risks to human life,
emergencies that threaten national security or public safety, and other risks to the safety and
welfare of the country. (Cummins)
Commenters:
Tyler Wubbena/Joint Water Commission (0029)
Brian Lisk/Hazen & Sawyer (0033)
Jed Mandel/EMA (0034)
Rey Agama/Caterpillar (0040)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
21
-------
Our Response:
We understand there may be a reasonable use of an AECD under these provisions where
the threat avoided by continued operation of the engine is indirectly tied to human life, such as
providing temporary power to a 911 call center. We are therefore adopting regulations that
describe an emergency situation as one where the condition of an engine's emission controls
poses a significant direct or indirect risk to human life. We do not see a need to create a
regulatory definition of emergency situation beyond the language specifically in the special
provisions section. EPA is not finalizing a more precise definition because we know we can not
foresee all possible emergency situations, and we understand that the exact threats posed by
various situations are rarely known at the time that decisions must be made about activating
emissions control over-rides. As for the other examples of potential risks that could be avoided
by continued operation of an engine, EPA is not further expanding the definition of emergency
situation. Nonroad engines are generally operated for some beneficial reason. The purpose of
the emergency operation provision was not to allow operation of nonroad engines in all
situations where there may be benefits for property or welfare, but to have a narrow provision to
allow operation of nonroad engines without emission controls where the danger of harm to
human life outweighs the also-critical benefits of emission control. Expanding the definition of
emergency situation could arguably allow use of uncontrolled nonroad engines in most or all
situations for which nonroad engines are normally used, which could severely undercut the
benefits of the emission controls.
We are not harmonizing this term with other provisions related to emergencies, which
are based on separate rationales. We expect operators who engage this AECD to report each use
to the engine manufacturer, and manufacturers will compile a report annually to EPA for review.
Above in Section 1.2.2, we explain the reasons why we are not extending the use of these
AECD's to stationary engines, or to engines certified under both part 1039 and part 60. We
expect that some portable gen-sets certified only under part 1039 may make use of these
AECD's, should an emissions control system fault trigger performance inducements when the
normal power source is interrupted.
3.3 Certification & Approvals of AECD's for Nonroad Engines & Equipment
3.3.1 Activation of the AECD
What Commenters Said:
EPA should modify the allowable AECD activation approval sequence in order to reflect
emergency conditions, specifically eliminating the need for a verbal request for prior permission
to activate an AECD. It is foreseeable that an operator may not (i) have an effective means of
contacting the certificate holder due to interruptions to communication systems caused by the
emergency situation or (ii) have the time to establish such communication. It is not prudent to
jeopardize human life or national or public security based on the availability of the certificate
holder to field such calls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year. In addition,
requiring the certificate holder to establish a means of fielding such requests for permission
(literally around the clock and year round) would create an undue burden on the certificate
22
-------
holder and provide no benefit to the environment. EPA should include the ability for the operator
to activate the AECD either by entering a preprogrammed emergency sequence of commands
found in the owner's manual or by some other means of "one time only" use of an inducement
override option. Following such initial activation, the operator should be required to send the
certificate holder notice that it engaged the AECD, including a description of the emergency
situation, the reason for the use of the AECD, and a signature from an official acknowledging the
conditions of the emergency situation. Further, the regulations should provide the operator a
means to reactivate the AECD immediately (without the notice described above) in the event a
prolonged emergency situation requires continued use of the engine without interruption from
the functioning (or nonfunctioning) of its emission controls. (EMA)
Caterpillar recommends that nonroad equipment covered by these provisions be allowed to be
sold with the AECD ready to be activated when it is needed, without having to first contact the
certificate holder.
The regulation should provide the certificate holder with the flexibility to adopt activation
methods that assure the availability of such equipment to assist in the wide range of emergency
situations that may arise. (Cummins)
Commenters:
Jed Mandel/EMA (0034)
Rey Agama/Caterpillar (0040)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Our Response:
We agree that it is prudent to enable the dormant code for the AECD to be activated
without requiring operators to reach a manufacturer at the time of the emergency. We are
finalizing the rule to permit, but not require, pre-arming of the dormant code. OEM's may
choose to sell equipment with AECD unarmed, with instructions that if an end user wishes to
have the AECD available, to call the OEM immediately to activate, similar to a new credit card
scenario. If a manufacturer wishes to enable a single use of the AECD as a pre-armed but
dormant feature, our final rule allows this. As proposed, we are finalizing unlimited renewals, for
additional contiguous intervals of emissions control bypass, if warranted during prolonged
disasters.
3.3.2 Duration of the AECD
What Commenters Said:
[EMA supplemental comments] We note that those SCR related inducements could be triggered
because of a lack of available diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), a crimped DEF line, a faulty sensor, or
any number of conditions that could lead to engine shutdown and the subsequent need to
diagnose and fix whatever triggered the inducement. During and immediately following a
disaster, many business owners (including those who repair engines and supply DEF) may be
unable to communicate with customers due to a lack of power - their servers may be down, they
may not have an ability to recharge their cell phones, and they may not have either internet or
23
-------
telephone service. Further, those able to communicate may be overwhelmed with calls to repair
or service vital emergency equipment as well as with requests to rent such life-saving equipment.
EMA member company's dealers and distributors shared that, following Hurricane Sandy, it
took over two weeks to get a technician to repair a unit (other than those at hospitals), where the
normal response time is typically same day service.
EPA must allow an AECD to remain active for a period of time that is appropriate for the
intended purpose. If the objective is to ensure that the functioning (or malfunctioning) of
emission controls does not pose a significant risk to human life, the AECD must remain active
for the period of time necessary to avoid the significant risk to human life. As engines typically
do not have a means to measure calendar time, such time frame should be described in terms of
engine hours of operation. Otherwise, operators must have the ability to reactivate the AECD an
unlimited number of times without the need for reprogramming by the manufacturer in order to
avoid significant risk to human life created by the functioning (or malfunctioning) of emission
controls. In the event of an emergency that might preclude the availability of DEF, there likely
would be some significant continued availability of diesel fuel. A typical diesel fuel tank is sized
to allow the operator to run the equipment a full shift - generally 12 hours - without having to
refill. EMA recommends that, at a minimum, EPA allow the AECD to be activated, and operate,
for 10 diesel fuel refilling cycles (i.e., 120 hours) without concern that the emission control
system will trigger an inducement. Finally, EMA recommends that EPA include in the final rule
(or establish a process for granting) extended AECD approvals in the event of a wide-scale or
prolonged emergency situation that would result in EPA granting a DEF waiver. Faced with a
catastrophe on the scale of the 2011 tsunami in Japan or Hurricane Katrina, it is foreseeable that
DEF may be unavailable for a prolonged period of time. Accordingly, if EPA were to grant a
DEF waiver, EPA should provide a means to allow extended deactivation of scheduled
inducements resulting from an operator's inability to replenish DEF in such situations. Such long
term DEF waiver scenarios are equally applicable to both nonroad and on-highway engines
Further, AECDs incorporated into gen sets and pumps must have the ability to remain active for
a period of 30 calendar days after initial activation. Such non-dedicated emergency gen sets and
pumps will include (i) a time clock for the purpose of recording the time elapsed after the AECD
is first activated and automatically triggering deactivation of the AECD after 30 days and (ii)
labels specifying that such engines may only be installed in electrical power generation or flood
control applications. (EMA)
This [24 engine hour] duration appears to be arbitrary, and would not provide enough time to
address a large scale emergency situation. Caterpillar recommends that the duration be increased
and that it should not be less than the maximum estimated human survival time without food and
water (based on FEMA guidance) or the maximum estimated time for EPA to grant an emission
waiver (based on EPA's historical data base), whichever is longer. For mobile construction
equipment, the AECD duration should allow for a minimum of 10 refills of the diesel fuel tank,
which would be roughly equivalent to 120 hours of engine operation, since these tanks are
generally sized to allow twelve hours of operation. Caterpillar also recommends that the EPA
allow for extended activation of this AECD for long-term emergencies. (Caterpillar)
24
-------
When activated, the emergency override should be active for the amount of time a human being
can survive without food or water. (Cummins)
Commenters:
Jed Mandel/EMA (0034)
Rey Agama/Caterpillar (0040)
Robert Jorgensen/Cummins (0039)
Our Response:
In the final regulations, we are allowing the AECD to remain active for up to 120 engine
hours instead of the proposed 24 engine hours. Based on the manufacturers' comments, we
believe that in some emergencies, it could take several days before technicians could get to all
engines needing service. In particular, the experience during Hurricane Sandy, which caused
major damage in the northeastern United States, was especially instructive. The combination of
an increase in the number of engines requiring service (due in part to the number of backup
generators being placed into long-term service) and the difficulty for technicians to travel to
these engines scattered over such a large area caused long delays for operators needing service.
For equipment that runs continuously, extending the period to 120 engine hours allows
manufacturers up to five days to reach each engine needing to have the AECD rearmed, and
longer for equipment running intermittently. We agree that limiting the AECD to 24 engine
hours of operation would be insufficient to ensure that emission controls do not inhibit engine
operation during prolonged disasters like hurricanes and major storms, even with available re-
sets. Even two or three days may not be enough time to allow a storm to dissipate,
communication to be restored, and roads to be cleared to the point where technicians could reach
every engine needing emergency service. In response to this new information, we believe it is
prudent to extend this allowance to 120 engine hours, which is equivalent to five operating days
for engines running continuously.
We are also adopting two related provisions directed to manufacturers to minimize any
abuse of this expended allowance. First, we are requiring manufacturers to include a method of
deactivating the AECD after emergencies of short duration. This was not essential under the
proposed approach because the AECD would deactivate itself after 24 engine hours. However,
now the AECD can remain active for up to 120 hours, which could easily be longer than the
actual emergency condition. Thus it is necessary to have some way for the operator to deactivate
the AECD. Second, we are requiring the manufacturer to take appropriate additional steps to
motivate operators to report AECD activation, at which time they may request resetting of the
AECD. For example, a manufacturer could include persistent visible and/or audible alarms that
are active from the point when the AECD is activated to the point when it is reset. We are also
recommending that manufacturers add a secondary time limit for operation in which the AECD
is deactivated before the 120-hour time limit is reached. Such a limit could be based on either on
a set number of days (for engines that can track time when the engine is not running) or total
engines hours including engine hours for which the AECD is not active.
We are not adopting the requested provision to allow generator sets and pumps the ability
to remain active for a period of 30 calendar days after initial activation. The comment does not
25
-------
provide justification for allowing this provision, which would allow generator sets and pumps six
times as long to operate after a single AECD activation, compared to other engines. The final
regulations allow operators to request reactivation of the emergency AECD for these engines in
appropriate situations.
26
------- |